Was Melchizedek a historical character or “something” other?

Melchizedek, king and priest: An ecumenical paradigm?

Thomas, T K, The Ecumenical Review52. 3 (Jul 2000): 403-409.

Author TK Thomas does a good job at presenting a brief history of Melchizedek as outlined in his appearances in the Bible. Thomas states that not much is known about Melchizedek but what is known makes it clear that he is not some “shadowy figure” that can quickly be forgotten. He, rather, “is part of a living tradition which has historical and theological significance.” There is this idea that Melchizedek is not part of the Levitical or Aaronic line of priests. So the question begs, who is he? We know his name means “king of righteousness” and that Salem, where he ruled as king, means peace – so he was a king of righteousness and peace.” The author does not specifically state he is Jesus incarnate, he actually thinks he was a pagan king, moved by God to become who he was, nonetheless it is clear the author believes Melchizedek to be a real historical person.

The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek ,

Robinson, S. E., Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, 18 (1987) p.26

            In The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek, author S.E. Robinson expresses a position that the apocryphal telling of Melchizedek (a great fiction describing the background and typology of the priest-king) had to have been taken from Jewish sources. Robinson speaks of there being two distinct episodes in the apocryphal and that evidence is clearly on the side of Jewish tradition being the source for some of the narrative. The debate amongst scholars is the question of why was the apocryphal written? It is said that Christians created the apocryphal to throw off the Jewish held position that Abraham was in fact the king-priest and that it was he that met, fed, and blessed Melchizedek. There then is garnered the idea that because Abraham cleaned Melchizedek up, he must have been a like to John the Baptist. And a type of Jesus is seen in his being offered up as a sacrifice. It seems the apocryphal was used to make one camp (Jewish) appear greater than another (Christian); in the end, not really sure who Melchizedek is.

Who Was Melchizedek?--A Suggested Emendation of Gen. 14:18

Charles Edo Anderson, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1903), pp. 176-177

Author C.E. Anderson would have his reader believe that Melchizedek is the king of Sodom and not the king of Salem by exchanging sibilants and removing a part of the Hebrew phrase which reads, Melchizedek, king of Salem. His case is built on the idea that the exchange between Melchizedek and Abraham seems out of sorts. The mention of Melchizedek seems to interrupt the flow of the narrative; he also states that Melchizedek was not part of the kings at war and that, a relative nobody would not be included in the event. He goes so far as to say the writer of Hebrews also found something strange in the inclusion of Melchizedek into the narrative. Anderson deems Melchizedek a disinterested party serving a disinterested God, and so finds the king of Sodom would be a better person to celebrate with Abraham the victories over the kings. Anderson also believes Sodom was a “victim” when it was destroyed by God. This speaks volumes to where Anderson’s thinking is regarding God.

In the first article we find the author accepting that Melchizedek is a historically real figure with great historical significance. He believes him to be a pagan priest and not a priest of the Levitical or Aaronic line. Deeming Melchizedek the king of righteousness and peace may indicate his belief that he was a type or Jesus, but since he did not specifically state it, I cannot assume it so. The second author speaks to the dissension between the Jews and Christians and how desperately they each attempted to make Abraham and Melchizedek seem other than what they were according to Scripture. There was no real consensus by the author as to who Melchizedek really was. And the last author had great issue with Melchizedek being a “good guy” if you will. He tried to paint him in a negative light and made him out to have no significance at all. I cannot accept this view at all.

All three articles shed some light on who Melchizedek may have been. They presented quite a few different options and from what I gathered, he was a real and historical figure; one that loved God and was used by Him to bless Abraham. The writer of Hebrew makes mention of him a few times, even saying God himself says in another place (referring to Psalms 110) Jesus will be in the order of Melchizedek. Why would God mention Jesus and the king of Sodom as being alike? There are however very many assumptions, is he a type of Christ, or John the Baptist? What I know is, he blessed the Father of Nations, and Jesus is likened to his order, he must have done something right.